Congratulations Senators - You sold out again. Put 3 Dems and 3 Pubs in a room for 8 months, and what do they come up with? The EXACT plan that is currently an utter failure in Massachusetts. Here's just one of hundreds of references if you simply search "massachusetts+health care".

Now who could have predicted that rates (COSTS) are gonna skyrocket just because we mandate all this coverage (and reform ONLY health insurance, without a mechanism to control costs)? .... uhhh....most of us, that's who.

Congratulations Insurance racket (i mean "industry"), you win again. For awhile...at least 60% of voting age adults are in favor of a public option. So, the will of the people is NOT being considered, and every one of you that do not support some type of public option should be very afraid.

Oh, and lastly, welcome to your new health care costs sheeple. We all deserve it for not being pro-active enough to stop this insanity (you know, the definition of insanity...doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result).

Congratulations Senators - You sold out again. Put 3 Dems and 3 Pubs in a room for 8 months, and what do they come up with? The EXACT plan that is currently an utter failure in Massachusetts. Here's just one of hundreds of references if you simply search "massachusetts+health care".

Now who could have predicted that rates (COSTS) are gonna skyrocket just because we mandate all this coverage (and reform ONLY health insurance, without a mechanism to control costs)? .... uhhh....most of us, that's who.

"Congratulations Insurance racket (i mean "industry"), you win again. For awhile...at least 60% of voting age adults are in favor of a public option. So, the will of the people is NOT being considered, and every one of you that do not support some type of public option should be very afraid. "

Oh, and lastly, welcome to your new health care costs sheeple. We all deserve it for not being pro-active enough to stop this insanity (you know, the definition of insanity...doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result).

-sensored

Click to expand...

What???????????
"Congratulations Insurance racket (i mean "industry"), you win again. For awhile...at least 60% of voting age adults are in favor of a public option. So, the will of the people is NOT being considered, and every one of you that do not support some type of public option should be very afraid. "

Where in the hell did you get that 60% of voting age adults are in favor of a public option, no way. That's why it's been sacked. 57% of all Americans oppose the public option. That's why all the outrage at the town halls, and the main reason that 1- 2 million showed up at the D.C tea party. You got your numbers screwed up, check Rasmussen, Gallup or any poll and you will see that a national take over with this public option has very strong opposition with the great majority of americans against it. You must be new to this board and have not been paying attention.

A majority of Americans would pay higher taxes if it meant health insurance for everyone, according to a new CBS News/New York Times poll &#8211; though many worry that the nation&#8217;s economy will suffer if the government were to offer universal health care.

The poll also finds that health care is a major domestic concern for Americans, second only to the economy.

Fifty-seven percent of those polled say they are willing to pay higher taxes in order to provide all Americans with health care coverage. While seventy three percent of Democrats favor a tax increase to fund coverage, only twenty-nine percent of Republicans back such a move.

Check the polls yourself. And even by Fox's numbers, only 75,000 showed up for that tepid tea party. Outrage at the Town Halls? A bunch of crazies bought and paid for by the very people that have been ripping off Medicare for billions.

What???????????
"Congratulations Insurance racket (i mean "industry"), you win again. For awhile...at least 60% of voting age adults are in favor of a public option. So, the will of the people is NOT being considered, and every one of you that do not support some type of public option should be very afraid. "

Where in the hell did you get that 60% of voting age adults are in favor of a public option, no way. That's why it's been sacked. 57% of all Americans oppose the public option. That's why all the outrage at the town halls, and the main reason that 1- 2 million showed up at the D.C tea party. You got your numbers screwed up, check Rasmussen, Gallup or any poll and you will see that a national take over with this public option has very strong opposition with the great majority of americans against it. You must be new to this board and have not been paying attention.

Click to expand...

Oh, Maple....your ignorance never ceases to amaze me... (and I say "ignorance" in the observation that you "ignore" what you don't agree with). The 57% you speak of refers to those against the senate's bill. AND I'M ONE OF THEM....BECAUSE IT NO LONGER HAS THE PUBLIC OPTION...

Congratulations Senators - You sold out again. Put 3 Dems and 3 Pubs in a room for 8 months, and what do they come up with? The EXACT plan that is currently an utter failure in Massachusetts. Here's just one of hundreds of references if you simply search "massachusetts+health care".

Congratulations Senators - You sold out again. Put 3 Dems and 3 Pubs in a room for 8 months, and what do they come up with? The EXACT plan that is currently an utter failure in Massachusetts. Here's just one of hundreds of references if you simply search "massachusetts+health care".

BOSTON  Three years ago, Massachusetts enacted perhaps the boldest state health care experiment in American history, bringing near-universal coverage to the commonwealth with Paul Revere speed.Skip to next paragraph Douglas Healey/Associated Press
Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts hopes to revamp the way public and private insurers reimburse physicians and hospitals.

To make it happen, Democratic lawmakers and Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican, made an expedient choice, deferring until another day any serious effort to control the states runaway health costs.
The day of reckoning has arrived. Threatened first by rapid early enrollment in its new subsidized insurance program and now by a withering economy, the states pioneering overhaul has entered a second, more challenging phase.
Thanks to new taxes and fees imposed last year, the health plans jittery finances have stabilized for the moment. But government and industry officials agree that the plan will not be sustainable over the next 5 to 10 years if they do not take significant steps to arrest the growth of health spending.
With Washington watching, the states leaders are again blazing new trails. Both Gov. Deval Patrick, Mr. Romneys Democratic successor, and a high-level state commission have set out to revamp the way public and private insurers reimburse physicians and hospitals.
They want a new payment method that rewards prevention and the effective control of chronic disease, instead of the current system, which pays according to the quantity of care provided. By late spring, the commission is expected to recommend such a system to the legislature.
If Massachusetts becomes the first state to make this conversion, health policy experts argue that it would be as audacious an achievement as universal coverage. The state faces several hurdles, including securing federal permission to impose the changes on Medicaid, a shared state and federal program, and more unusually on Medicare, which is financed entirely by Washington.
Those who led the 2006 effort said it would not have been feasible to enact universal coverage if the legislation had required heavy cost controls. The very stakeholders who were coaxed into the tent  doctors, hospitals, insurers and consumer groups  would probably have been driven into opposition by efforts to reduce their revenues and constrain their medical practices, they said.
Now those stakeholders and the state government have a huge investment to protect. But the task of cost-cutting remains difficult in a state with a long tradition of heavy spending on health care. Massachusetts has more doctors per capita than any state, Boston is home to some of the countrys most expensive academic medical centers, and a new state law requires comprehensive benefits like prescription drug and mental health coverage.
Alan Sager, a professor of health policy at Boston University, has calculated that health spending per person in Massachusetts increased faster than the national average in seven of the last eight years. Furthermore, he said, the gap has grown exponentially, with Massachusetts now spending about a third more per person, up from 23 percent in 1980.
Just as this may have been the easiest place to do coverage, it may be the most difficult place to do cost control, said Jonathan Gruber, a health economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
But Mr. Patrick has shown signs of playing tough with the states hospitals and insurers. Responding in January to a series in The Boston Globe that exposed how the states most influential hospitals negotiate high reimbursement rates, Mr. Patrick announced that he would explore whether the state could regulate insurance premiums.
Frankly, its very hard for the average consumer, or frankly the average governor, to understand how some of these companies can have the margins they do and the annual increases in premiums that they do, Mr. Patrick said in an interview. At some level, youve just got to say, Look, thats just not acceptable, and more to the point, its not sustainable. 
The threat seems to have been heard. Insurers seeking to participate in the states subsidized insurance program, Commonwealth Care, recently submitted bids so low that officials announced last week that they would keep premiums flat in the coming year. That may provide cover for the program as the state seeks ways to fill a nearly $4 billion gap in its 2010 budget.
The state expects to spend $595 million more on its health insurance programs this year than in 2006, a 42 percent increase. But about 432,000 people have gained coverage, leaving only 2.6 percent of the population without insurance, according to a recent state survey. At only one-sixth the national average, that is by far the lowest rate in any state.
Massachusetts achieved its high coverage rates by mandating in its landmark law that almost every resident have health insurance, and that all but the smallest businesses make some contribution toward their employees costs. Those who do not enroll but are deemed able to afford insurance can be fined up to $1,068 in the 2009 tax year.
To make the mandated insurance affordable, the state subsidizes premiums for those earning up to three times the federal poverty level, or $66,150 for a family of four. Massachusetts already had a law requiring insurers to accept all applicants regardless of their health status.
Although nearly 60 percent of the newly insured are covered by public programs, Massachusetts also seems to be a rare state where the percentage of employers offering health benefits is actually growing. And the state government has realized substantial savings, worth about $250 million last year, from lower payments to hospitals for uncompensated care for the uninsured and underinsured.

Congratulations Senators - You sold out again. Put 3 Dems and 3 Pubs in a room for 8 months, and what do they come up with? The EXACT plan that is currently an utter failure in Massachusetts. Here's just one of hundreds of references if you simply search "massachusetts+health care".

Now who could have predicted that rates (COSTS) are gonna skyrocket just because we mandate all this coverage (and reform ONLY health insurance, without a mechanism to control costs)? .... uhhh....most of us, that's who.

"Congratulations Insurance racket (i mean "industry"), you win again. For awhile...at least 60% of voting age adults are in favor of a public option. So, the will of the people is NOT being considered, and every one of you that do not support some type of public option should be very afraid. "

Oh, and lastly, welcome to your new health care costs sheeple. We all deserve it for not being pro-active enough to stop this insanity (you know, the definition of insanity...doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result).

-sensored

Click to expand...

What???????????
"Congratulations Insurance racket (i mean "industry"), you win again. For awhile...at least 60% of voting age adults are in favor of a public option. So, the will of the people is NOT being considered, and every one of you that do not support some type of public option should be very afraid. "

Where in the hell did you get that 60% of voting age adults are in favor of a public option, no way. That's why it's been sacked. 57% of all Americans oppose the public option. That's why all the outrage at the town halls, and the main reason that 1- 2 million showed up at the D.C tea party. You got your numbers screwed up, check Rasmussen, Gallup or any poll and you will see that a national take over with this public option has very strong opposition with the great majority of americans against it. You must be new to this board and have not been paying attention.

Congratulations Senators - You sold out again. Put 3 Dems and 3 Pubs in a room for 8 months, and what do they come up with? The EXACT plan that is currently an utter failure in Massachusetts. Here's just one of hundreds of references if you simply search "massachusetts+health care".

BOSTON  Three years ago, Massachusetts enacted perhaps the boldest state health care experiment in American history, bringing near-universal coverage to the commonwealth with Paul Revere speed.Skip to next paragraph Douglas Healey/Associated Press
Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts hopes to revamp the way public and private insurers reimburse physicians and hospitals.

To make it happen, Democratic lawmakers and Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican, made an expedient choice, deferring until another day any serious effort to control the states runaway health costs.
The day of reckoning has arrived. Threatened first by rapid early enrollment in its new subsidized insurance program and now by a withering economy, the states pioneering overhaul has entered a second, more challenging phase.
Thanks to new taxes and fees imposed last year, the health plans jittery finances have stabilized for the moment. But government and industry officials agree that the plan will not be sustainable over the next 5 to 10 years if they do not take significant steps to arrest the growth of health spending.
With Washington watching, the states leaders are again blazing new trails. Both Gov. Deval Patrick, Mr. Romneys Democratic successor, and a high-level state commission have set out to revamp the way public and private insurers reimburse physicians and hospitals.
They want a new payment method that rewards prevention and the effective control of chronic disease, instead of the current system, which pays according to the quantity of care provided. By late spring, the commission is expected to recommend such a system to the legislature.
If Massachusetts becomes the first state to make this conversion, health policy experts argue that it would be as audacious an achievement as universal coverage. The state faces several hurdles, including securing federal permission to impose the changes on Medicaid, a shared state and federal program, and more unusually on Medicare, which is financed entirely by Washington.
Those who led the 2006 effort said it would not have been feasible to enact universal coverage if the legislation had required heavy cost controls. The very stakeholders who were coaxed into the tent  doctors, hospitals, insurers and consumer groups  would probably have been driven into opposition by efforts to reduce their revenues and constrain their medical practices, they said.
Now those stakeholders and the state government have a huge investment to protect. But the task of cost-cutting remains difficult in a state with a long tradition of heavy spending on health care. Massachusetts has more doctors per capita than any state, Boston is home to some of the countrys most expensive academic medical centers, and a new state law requires comprehensive benefits like prescription drug and mental health coverage.
Alan Sager, a professor of health policy at Boston University, has calculated that health spending per person in Massachusetts increased faster than the national average in seven of the last eight years. Furthermore, he said, the gap has grown exponentially, with Massachusetts now spending about a third more per person, up from 23 percent in 1980.
Just as this may have been the easiest place to do coverage, it may be the most difficult place to do cost control, said Jonathan Gruber, a health economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
But Mr. Patrick has shown signs of playing tough with the states hospitals and insurers. Responding in January to a series in The Boston Globe that exposed how the states most influential hospitals negotiate high reimbursement rates, Mr. Patrick announced that he would explore whether the state could regulate insurance premiums.
Frankly, its very hard for the average consumer, or frankly the average governor, to understand how some of these companies can have the margins they do and the annual increases in premiums that they do, Mr. Patrick said in an interview. At some level, youve just got to say, Look, thats just not acceptable, and more to the point, its not sustainable. 
The threat seems to have been heard. Insurers seeking to participate in the states subsidized insurance program, Commonwealth Care, recently submitted bids so low that officials announced last week that they would keep premiums flat in the coming year. That may provide cover for the program as the state seeks ways to fill a nearly $4 billion gap in its 2010 budget.
The state expects to spend $595 million more on its health insurance programs this year than in 2006, a 42 percent increase. But about 432,000 people have gained coverage, leaving only 2.6 percent of the population without insurance, according to a recent state survey. At only one-sixth the national average, that is by far the lowest rate in any state.
Massachusetts achieved its high coverage rates by mandating in its landmark law that almost every resident have health insurance, and that all but the smallest businesses make some contribution toward their employees costs. Those who do not enroll but are deemed able to afford insurance can be fined up to $1,068 in the 2009 tax year.
To make the mandated insurance affordable, the state subsidizes premiums for those earning up to three times the federal poverty level, or $66,150 for a family of four. Massachusetts already had a law requiring insurers to accept all applicants regardless of their health status.
Although nearly 60 percent of the newly insured are covered by public programs, Massachusetts also seems to be a rare state where the percentage of employers offering health benefits is actually growing. And the state government has realized substantial savings, worth about $250 million last year, from lower payments to hospitals for uncompensated care for the uninsured and underinsured.

Useful Searches

About USMessageBoard.com

USMessageBoard.com was founded in 2003 with the intent of allowing all voices to be heard. With a wildly diverse community from all sides of the political spectrum, USMessageBoard.com continues to build on that tradition. We welcome everyone despite political and/or religious beliefs, and we continue to encourage the right to free speech.

Come on in and join the discussion. Thank you for stopping by USMessageBoard.com!